Judicial review

Reasonable Findings, Questionable Remedies: the SCC on Remitting Matters on Judicial Review in Pepa

The Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 reveals fault lines in the current approach to granting remedies on judicial review. The resulting uncertainty risks undermining the principle of predictability in the administrative state. In short, Pepa has significant consequences for administrative decision-makers and applicants seeking judicial review, particularly with respect to statutory interpretation.

R v JW: Programming-Based Sentencing, “Wrongful Conduct,” and Enhanced Credit

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v JW addresses two intertwined controversies in Canadian sentencing law. First, it clarifies whether—and how—a sentencing judge may take account of the time an offender is likely to need to complete institutional programming when setting a custodial term. Second, it refines the meaning of “wrongful conduct” for the purpose of denying enhanced pre-sentence credit under s 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

Auer v Auer : Vavilov Prevails in the Review of Subordinate Legislation

What standard of review applies when reviewing the vires of subordinate legislation? In the post-Vavilov era, this question has been the subject of conflicting appellate guidance. The Alberta Court of Appeal in this case followed the “hyper-deferential” standard that the Supreme Court (“SCC”) set in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long‑Term Care) […]

Jurisdiction For Tax Cases: Supreme Court Of Canada Draws The Line Between Federal Court And Tax Court Of Canada

Questions on tax jurisdiction currently cause headaches for many taxpayers attempting to resolve a tax issue. It can be difficult to determine whether the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) or Federal Court (“FC”) is the correct jurisdiction for the appeal to be heard. This jurisdictional ambiguity has led to taxpayers concurrently commencing proceedings in both […]

Cabinet of Curiosities: The SCC on Cabinet Secrecy

In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 SCC 4 [IPC], the Supreme Court of Canada (“the SCC”) held that mandate letters issued by Premier Doug Ford to his ministers shortly after the formation of his government in 2018 are protected from disclosure. In doing so, the SCC overturned the Court of […]

The Procedural Unfairness of the Law Society of Ontario’s Regulatory Bylaws 

In Mirza et al v the Law Society of Ontario 2023 ONSC 6727, ["Mirza"] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ” or the “Court”) struck a balance between the requirements of administrative procedural fairness and the integrity of the legal profession. The decision introduced some new checks and balances on unilateral actions on behalf of […]

Keeping Confident about Cabinet Confidentiality: Ontario v Ontario

In Ontario (Attorney General) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 SCC 4 [Ontario], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or the “Court”) held that the executive branch of the Ontario government was not required to disclose mandate letters sent to Cabinet Ministers because of society’s overriding interest in preserving Cabinet secrecy. The Court struck […]

Yatar Hero: SCC confirms simultaneous judicial review and appeal in Yatar v TD Insurance

In Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2004 SCC 8 [Yatar], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously ruled that the existence of a statutory right of appeal does not preclude individuals from seeking judicial review for questions not covered by the appeal. Specifically, where the appeal right is restricted to questions of law, judicial […]

APPEAL WATCH: MNS v Saskatchewan (Environment) on Land Claims and Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) is set to hear an appeal out of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“SKCA”) on a decades-long Métis land claim proceeding through a judicial review application in the case of Métis Nation – Saskatchewan v Saskatchewan (Environment), 2023 SKCA 35 [MNS]. 

Ewen: The judge-represented litigant

The Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”) resolved an “unusual question” about the Federal Court’s jurisdiction to raise a substantive question not raised by the parties in the context of an urgent motion for judicial review. In Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Ewen, 2023 FCA 225 [Ewen], the FCA considered the unprompted decision […]